"Free" doesn't mean they're any good, comprehensive, or a royal treat to install and run.

Big whoop.

Microsoft sells 10X more OS licenses than Apple and they still charge what for it? So much for the economies of scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

You either have not installed and used and run anti-virus software before, or you do not consider your time to be of any value.

Hours of work per month installing, configuring and running something otherwise completely unproductive is not "free". Slowing down your system while you run a scan or update the engine or definitions is not "free".

LOL... AVG among others is 100% free. Takes less than 10 minutes to install. Its rated extremly high. So yes it is good and comprehensive.

In addition I can tell it to scan and update at 2 in the morning when i'm long gone from my computer and it won't waste me time. But actually I have scans disabled because all I really care is the active shield that monitors as websites download content etc.. I haven't had a virus in years on any of my Windows machines.

As for economics or scale... its common knowledge that Apple makes most of its profits from Hardware and not Software. In addition keeping constantly upgraded costs more with OS X as there are much more frequent paid updates. I think this all goes to further my point that you are over exagerating the costs of Windows.

LOL... AVG among others is 100% free. Takes less than 10 minutes to install. Its rated extremly high. So yes it is good and comprehensive.

In addition I can tell it to scan and update at 2 in the morning when i'm long gone from my computer and it won't waste me time. But actually I have scans disabled because all I really care is the active shield that monitors as websites download content etc.. I haven't had a virus in years on any of my Windows machines.

As for economics or scale... its common knowledge that Apple makes most of its profits from Hardware and not Software. In addition keeping constantly upgraded costs more with OS X as there are much more frequent paid updates. I think this all goes to further my point that you are over exagerating the costs of Windows.

I agree with this to an extent. Apple are able to subsidise the cost of OSX through the hardware. Contrary to this, Microsoft don't have hardware that they can use to subsidise the cost of their OS. It might be cheaper to buy an OSX license than it is a Windows license, but the hardware you bought to run it on is considerably more expensive to begin with.

LOL... AVG among others is 100% free. Takes less than 10 minutes to install.

So... once again, your time is worthless, then.

I am not rich, but I earn a pretty fair $30 per hour. Ten minutes doing something I don't want to do is $5 to me, dude. Maybe you're odd and actually enjoy installing stuff. I don't. so for me, there's the Mac.

And installation isn't the only time cost of using anti-virus programs. Once again, I guess your time is worthless. Mine is not.

I do use Anti-virus when I'm forced to use Windows. I much prefer Avast over AVG. I've used both. They both slow down your system when performing updates, and it's annoying. Occasionally I've been forced to run a full scan, or worse, a boot time scan. When there are things I want to do on the machine, that costs time, which is money.

What anti-virus software do you use that takes hours each month installing, configuring and running? Just install something like AVG or Avast, which after a 30 second installation requires no further interaction for as long as you use it - and they are both free too! Avast uses 40mb of RAM to run in the background on my laptop, and since I'm packing 3GB of RAM, I'm not really concerned about how terribly my performance is degraded by anti-virus software.

The hit on an underpowered laptop is not due to RAM, but to processor cycles. And the laptops Microsoft is "promoting" in this ad campaign -- the laptops you guys claim compete against Apple -- are all underpowered and a "hit" is definitely felt.

You honestly never have to touch Avast after you install it? How much do you use your machine for things other than gaming?

The hit on an underpowered laptop is not due to RAM, but to processor cycles. And the laptops Microsoft is "promoting" in this ad campaign -- the laptops you guys claim compete against Apple -- are all underpowered and a "hit" is definitely felt.

You honestly never have to touch Avast after you install it? How much do you use your machine for things other than gaming?

Why would I need to open Avast? It updates on its own, and the resident shield sits there protecting my machine without any intervention from me. I've been using Avast for about 3 months now and I've not once had to load it up for any reason. On my laptop it's using 40MB of RAM and 0% CPU resources. If I uninstall it, it makes no difference at all to the performance of my machine.

I am not rich, but I earn a pretty fair $30 per hour. Ten minutes doing something I don't want to do is $5 to me, dude. Maybe you're odd and actually enjoy installing stuff. I don't. so for me, there's the Mac.

And installation isn't the only time cost of using anti-virus programs. Once again, I guess your time is worthless. Mine is not.

I do use Anti-virus when I'm forced to use Windows. I much prefer Avast over AVG. I've used both. They both slow down your system when performing updates, and it's annoying. Occasionally I've been forced to run a full scan, or worse, a boot time scan. When there are things I want to do on the machine, that costs time, which is money.

So you sit their earning $30 per hour for 24 hours per day, and even 5minutes out to install an anti-virus program once is going to leave you out of pocket? I think not. You earn those $30 an hour at work, not at home, and you don't need to take a day off work to install an anti-virus program. You just do it when you get home from work. Jeez.

I don't want to get in the middle of an anti-virus fight, but just thought I'd add my limited experience with AVG.

I told a friend of mine, who couldn't afford to pay for anti-virus software, to download AVG for his laptop. I helped him out installing it so I saw that it was installed and running, but he would still get some kind of virus about every other month. I don't know why or how, but I do know he visited porn sites a lot. AVG detected the virus and told him it was there, but never prevented him from getting it nor could get rid of it. Is this typical of AVG?

As for the costs, if you can you get a HD consumer camcorder, memory, DSLR, dual printers, required accessories and year's broadband for less than $5k with a Mac or brand-name PC capable of working with them decently, let me know!

Rating AVG High is like determining which pile of dog poo smells least bad.

I've seen it run on far too many $300 Best Buy specials to be convinced it is any good. Not only does it make the computer unusable for the first 10 minutes or so after startup. it still does not protect against some of the most common and most vile spyware (AKA the Anti-Virus 2009 and all variations of it)

Rating AVG High is like determining which pile of dog poo smells least bad.

I've seen it run on far too many $300 Best Buy specials to be convinced it is any good. Not only does it make the computer unusable for the first 10 minutes or so after startup. it still does not protect against some of the most common and most vile spyware (AKA the Anti-Virus 2009 and all variations of it)

I think your logic is a little bit twisted there. So you're saying that if it came on a $3000 computer, it would suddenly be a good product even though nothing had changed about it? I've used it for many years prior to switching to Avast, and it's been fine. It's amazing how many people think that because a product is free it is automatically rubbish, and that the paid for product is obviously much better.

AVG detected the virus and told him it was there, but never prevented him from getting it nor could get rid of it. Is this typical of AVG?

No idea, haven't used AVG in years, but would venture to say that some free is better than other free, and from experience would venture to say that Avast! is probably the best "free" out there.

I only recommend "free AV" to my friends as a short-term coverage, but that's just me. AV companies that are for profit, don't stay in business from "free". I also try to avoid recommending those that rely on a lot of marketing (that's targeting, not marketing, far as I'm concerned) - research AV comparatives, wikipedia (see how long they've been around, who's who - free support, how fast, etc.)

As a fair analogy - with any AV, or Mac or PC, the irony is that many folks (myself included, historically) will face that day where they think that a winch on a lifted and locked jeep guarantees they can go anywhere - and end up places where it takes many winches to get out of...

In my many years of extensively using Windows (NT... 2000... XP), to my knowledge I was never hit with a virus, but I am ecstatic not to be dealing with the issue since largely abandoning Windows in 2006. The disaster that is Vista makes me even happier.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware. The only reason you'd be buying further copies of OSX is to install it on your Apple hardware, which once again you've already paid Apple for. Just think of it like the iPod Touch, where you've paid out a lot of begin with, but then get heavily subsidised OS updates (with a small fee attached) along the life of the product. Microsoft doesn't have that sort of closed eco-system, so the cost of its products are higher, but the hardware in which its products can run on is much cheaper.

Good news for you then, because definition updates require no interaction and very minimal resources, and active sheild means you don't need to actually run scans. So count that reason out

I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.

Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.

In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.

I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.

This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.

Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.

Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!

All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".

Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.

Quote:

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware.

Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.

A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.

I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.

Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.

In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.

I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.

This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.

Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.

Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!

All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".

I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.

Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.

Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.

A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.

I don't quite follow you. The cost of OSX is factored into the hardware sale. The hardware sale nets Apple a massive return, which they can subsequently use to subsidise the cost of future OS updates, just like they do with the iPod Touch. So effectively, you pay up front for the future OS revisions, which are then cheaper when they become available. In contrast, in the world of the PC, you don't pay up front for OS versions, but pay for them at full price if you do want them, when they become available.

I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.

Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.

However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.

But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.

Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.

However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.

But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.

Yeah I agree entirely. The problem is that these nuiances are being over-egged to the absolute extremes by people around here. For instance, spending hours each month installing and configuring anti-virus? That is simply absolute rubbish, since the whole thing is about 5 minutes tops, once, the first time you install it. Then people are moaning about the cost of Windows, whilst conveniently forgetting that they paid considerably more for their Mac to begin with. There's a fine line between being a fan, and being a fanboy, but a lot of people around here have not only crossed that, but done so running at full speed. I am absolutely a fan of where Apple is going with the iPhone, but I am not so blinkered to see that there is much improvement to be made.

Just like premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer: not enough to sustain OS development.

That's where you've run astray.

So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.

So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.

You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.

You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.

Disclaimer: I am not invested in AAPL or MSFT.

But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less. In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software. So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.

I think your logic is a little bit twisted there. So you're saying that if it came on a $3000 computer, it would suddenly be a good product even though nothing had changed about it? I've used it for many years prior to switching to Avast, and it's been fine. It's amazing how many people think that because a product is free it is automatically rubbish, and that the paid for product is obviously much better.

Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.

But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.

Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.

But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.

That's the main reason I switched from AVG because it's got a bit bloated. Avast is quick and slim.

But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less.

You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.

Quote:

In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software.

Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?

Quote:

So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.

You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.

Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?

huh?

Sorry, but I really don't know how much simpler I can make it for you to understand. Let's see if you can understand this...

Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.

In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.

Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.

Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.

If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?

Quote:

In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.

Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.

If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?

nonsequitur

It uses the rest of it's large profits to persue new markets... I'm not suggesting they use ALL of it to develope OSX, only some of it! Afterall, if these used all of their profits to development OSX, that'd be one hell of a budget!

The more MS portrays Apple as the premium brand, the more interesting and desirable it becomes. Conversely, all this advertising MS is doing actually makes them look like the bargain-basement brandyou don't choose, but have to settle for. Which would be true, anyway.

Quadra.... you're totally on the mark IMO.

MS is just hastening their demise. Let them just keep rowing their boat right off the water fall. Apple has seen growth in their market share because of on simple fact.... they build a better quality OS and machine. One thing I try to pass on to any PC friends considering a Mac is that I get a much longer life out of my machines. On average about 5 or 6 years while it seems I hear about them buying new machines every two or three years because something finally broke beyond the point of being able to fix it. Another poster in here also talks about resale value..... and he/she couldn't be more spot on. Just take a look at CL and you'll see.....

LOL...Apple doesn't even offer downgrading if for some reason someone prefered Tiger over Leopard.. oddly enough I thought Tiger was more stable but thats another story.

And to those of you who claim $2800 is not a high price even for Apple when Sony (which is a premium brand) can offer you more at roughly the same size display for about $1600 then you have reality issues. I mean with Apple you go from somewhat reasonable to ultra expensive so fast you don't have to time to blink. The 2.0 MacBook is somewhat reasonable but god forbid you want more than 1280x800 pixels. I mean i'm not a pro, but I can see the use even in browsing, emailing, and IM for more the 1280x800 pixels.

Another odd thing I noted... go look at Sony for example. Its the opposite of Macs in the fact the generally the smaller you get the more expensive the laptop is. Where as with the Macbooks its the reverse (If you don't consider the Air).

My BF for example won't get a 13", he prefers larger screen and is laptop is mostly used as a desktop but sometimes taken out on the road. He is also a movie buff. Not that he creates them, but loves to watch them especially oldies and Woody Allen films. He would love a 17", he loves style as well but there is no way he could justify $2000+ when all he would ever do is email and watch movies. I tried to give him my 13" MacBook instead of selling it and he refused... saying the screen was too small. Me on the other hand, I love 13" but wouldn't mind more pixels. The Sony Z series offers 1600x900 in 13.1" notebook... who knows I'm sure in the future pixels will get more dense on the MacBooks as well.

And for those of you who claim that OS X is so much better... Leopard has had a ton of issues and still does in regard to networking. I was even told to reinstall Leopard from Apple Support for a networking issue. I thought such advice was only something Dell and HP gave... What I will gave Apple is they have good support that speaks English and they are likely to go above and beyond. As I said in an other post... HP, Dell, Toshiba love to give you the run around.

I do see value in iLife, but at the high end its really hard to justify what is becoming $1000 of difference especially if all you want is a 15" screen. I don't see why Apple couldn't do a consumer 15" notebok. Its really one size fits all in Apple's consumer notebook strategy and where I do 100% agree with Microsoft in their "Life with out walls" campaign. People do want a little more flexibility. And all any fanboi does is throw a huge hissy fit when some suggests Apple could be more flexible. Its like soviet russia. I must follow 100% and I obviously disagree with communism if I suggest one point to improve it.

I do think these ads are stupid and sorta lame. But on the other hand is big win with these threads full of spin, lies, and huge hissy fits. It just further proves that Apple is like BMW and most don't want to be associated with people that look down. Alot of people might dream about a BMW, but even rich people buy a Ford or a Hyundai to not be seen as snotty...
Some of you say it doesn't matter... but it matters enough for you to appearently get upset about it and ridicule them.

I mean you would think Microsoft raped your children the deep hatred you have for them. Its like your goal is to topple their marketshare but then you argue in a circle that it isn't what Apple wants and the Apple is premium. Which one is it? Is Apple Premium and Microsoft Windows always the somewhat inferior but for the masses or is Apple gonna change its strategy and actually overtake Windows?

I just know I hate fanbois and I know Steve Jobs hates them too...

Three words you should look up at Dictionary.com

1) VAPID
2) IGNORANT
3) Concise

Would be amazing to see you actually get to the point. Reading your post gave me a headache.

Saying there are any "issues" w/o being specific about anything is like hearing some full of crap journalist say "Consensus says".... in other words... "I'm just pulling this shit out of my butt".

I've got an older 1.6GHz G5 tower at my office. It seems slow now (when compared to the new iMac at home which is a screamer) but I've had both versions of OS X you mentioned on it... and guess what.... since the beginning of 2004 when I got this

I've NEVER HAD A SYSTEM CRASH.... I can't say the same for the countless POS windows machines I've worked on.

If you can't see the differences in working with one OS over the other then that is the true proof of just how currently ignorant you are on the subject. My time is worth money. Steve Jobs and company appreciate this...... Bill Gates and that fat blow hard Ballmer don't..... so guess who gets my $ when I buy my computers?

You started your post correctly, though; with "Oh, gee, I don't know". Things like Bluetooth, Gigabit network... are common for some time now. It is really discouraging entering discussion with people who think PCs in general are still in late '90.

No, my laptop does not have magnetic latch. You really reckon it is so important..? And it is plastic (though it does not crack). And no backlight keyboard. And no DisplayPort (thanks God for that!). And DVD is not slot-loading.

But it does have Firewire. Standard composite video output (so I can plug it to any TV with 5$ cable). PC card (which I use for wireless broadband adapter). Basic battery gives only 6 hours 15 minutes idle, 4 - 5 hours light work (email, Internet with wireless, document typing/reading). But I can swap basic battery with stronger one and add secondary battery which will increase weight but will give me easily 15 hours of autonomy (which is great for whole day on the beach, camping weekend, or those pesky international flights - which, for us Kiwis, almost every one is). And my DVD is LightScribe capable and can easily be removed (without opening case) and replaced with BR drive.

And it is still NZ$800 cheaper than MacBook that does not have some of above mentioned things even as option.

So... what is your point..?

Anyway... what makes iSight camera so special? Beside cool name? I recall old external one was very high end with glass optics, auto-focus etc, but built-in one seems to be pretty ordinary..?

We have 5 year old Macs that work fine with Leopard (there is no Snow Leopard yet). In fact, the iMac G4/1.0 17" was introduced in Feb 2003, and that's over 6 years ago. And it's fully supported by Leopard, and runs just great. My kids get hand-me-down hardware, and it just keeps working and working and working. And getting better with each new OS release - which conveniently comes in affordable family packs.

And if you're really saying you haven't seen 5 year old PC hardware that can't run Vista, you're either a fking liar, or ignorant beyond belief. Go read a few articles instead of coming in here and leaving post after post of troll bullshit.

Silly...

I'm not saying there is no 5 years old hardware that will not run Vista, but I am saying I haven't seen it yet myself. And we did upgrade number our clients' desktops and notebooks to Vista. Every P4 we were asked to reinstall with Vista did well - some needed more RAM to run comfortably, but that was all.

You don't trust me? That is not really my problem. You like to believe Vista's hardware compatibility hasn't improved much since beta releases? That is not really my problem either.

No, I called him a liar because his post was pretty much a compendium of MS talking points, he apparently chose to register on a Mac enthusiast site even though he specifically stated that he disliked our company, and he made some highly suspect claims about his experience of Windows as a pristine nirvana.

I have to ask myself why someone who is enjoying using their PCs would ever see the need to seek out Mac users to school them in the error of their ways.

You, on the other hand, without knowing me, have elected to question how I was raised, based on my failure to conform to your vision of the world.

Which just makes you an asshole.

I'll accept that - my remark regarding values you've brought from your parents' home was uncalled for. I don't know you and should not judge you so lightly. My sincere apologies for that. I was an asshole.

Time spent in these forums is getting to me... in a way.

Other part, well, I still think you are wrong. That man's personal experience with both PC and Mac can be perfectly valid - from his point of view. You are judging him lightly as well simply because his experience is not echoing your experience - or your opinion.

Unless you have some kind of divine insight in his personal and computing life.

If you know of Snow Leopard, then you know it isn't an option now or maybe ever, but Leopard runs just fine on my 7-year-old PowerBook G4. When Leopard debuted, my PB was well over 5 years old. And your point was?

No I haven't.

I did say all computers I have seen (coincidently all computers we were asked to reinstall/upgrade with Vista). Mostly HPs and Lenovos, some Acers. Also some custom built boxes (TPG, PBTech, Ultra...).

Most of our clients did wait for SP1 for Vista, and with that hardware compatibility reached more than acceptable levels.

Sony as a brand is not common in corporate environments, at least not here in NZ.

Additionally, number of hardware available for Windows platform is making it much harder for MS to keep compatibility compared to Apple; regarding that, they are playing in completely different leagues. And with that in mind, I'd say MS is actually doing very decent job compatibility wise.

There is nothing truly bad with either platform. But lets make a comparison.

If you need to buy a car, you can buy a Hyundai or a BMW--both will get you to where you want to go, but one is inexpensive, the other is not. Yet folks still buy BMW's for whatever reason. Some might perceive the BMW to be better; some may say it's a waste of money and I could have the Hyundai and some cash in my pocket.

The lower end PC is the Hyundai. It will get you where you want to go, but maybe slower, clunkier and in less style. The best PC is a Cadillac. Windows Vista Basic is a four cylinder, Premium a V-8.

The Apple is a BMW. Nicer design, pretty to look at, possibly better engineering a better engine in all model lines. Is it worth the extra money? To some yes. Does it look better in the driveway? Better than most PC's. Is the OS better? I have to say yes. Does it cost more to repair? Sure.

Microsoft recent ad campaign, a good one, depicts the Hyundai buyer. There will always be lots of Hyundai buyers.

Not a bad compare... but...

This BMW has BMW body and, say, cockpit (user interface?)... but engine, gearbox, everything else mechanical... is same as Hyundai.

That is more the way I see it.

and then, some of those great looking bodies will get cracks. and you start wondering if they are real BMW bodies, or just good looking but not so high quality copies.